Hunt's Permanent Secretary was appearing before the House of Commons DCMS committee today. He was naturally asked about Adam Smith's rôle in passing information to Frédéric Michel at News International. His response was pure Sir Humphrey.
From the Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 81804.html

He was asked ten times whether or not he had authorised the SpAd as a go-between and ten times he avoided the question. Well worth a read.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

They're so clever these top civil servants, aren't they?

If he can't answer a simple question like that, he's either not up to his job or doing a party political favour.

It looks like a re-run of when MP's tried to find out who had carried out Andy Coulson's vetting when he started working at No.10.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com

At his level it's not about ability. He's utterly conflicted. He has a responsibility to his minister and also to his department. To lean either way puts one or the other in the kakky. He could put Hunt overboard with a look, but that would be the end of his career as well. Or he can dodge and hope the bullet hits somebody else.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

I was being sarcastic about his inability. He knows what he's doing.

Well, it's easy enough to translate, isn't it. It quite clearly signals that when Hunt suggested that the Permanent Secretary knew of and approved the role of the Special Adviser in dealing with Murdoch, he was telling what is popularly known as a big fat lie. So he's still dropped Hunt in it.

It makes it sound so technical though, doesn't it? You can imagine Hunt standing up and saying "I apologise for giving the impression that the Permanent Secretary had given permission for my special advisor..."

Leveson's refused Hunt's application for a quick appearance at the hearing.

He will be left to stew for a few weeks more, never able to relax, in case that footstep behind him is Harriet Harman, ready to deliver another verbal evisceration.

I want the fucker out for the local elections. Or rather a few days before with Cameron in the firing line.

Labour should pick up a few councils. Of course, the "real" story will be Labour not winning the London mayoralty or Glasgow. Or Cirencester, or something.

He's also said it's not up to him to examine ministerial actions against standards.
Ball in Dave's court...

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

As someone said on another thread, "Did you see the sign outside that said Dead Minister Storage?"

That's good isn't it? If Dave attempts to duck it then there's no hiding place.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

I think he may be able to investigate it himself...

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

Have a look at this in the Indy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 85314.html

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

Judging by the polls quoted in the Indy article, that would be a very dangerous strategy.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...